Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.arch.arithmetic > #65

Re: Napier's Bones versus Booth Encoding

Path csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no>
Newsgroups comp.arch.arithmetic
Subject Re: Napier's Bones versus Booth Encoding
Date Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:30:49 +0200
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines 29
Message-ID <lnkamm$u2j$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References <7054f482-c4b1-4ae9-a5e9-426654e5be7f@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host pLUXSGPdhr5gXpZCW4+aQw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Complaints-To abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26
X-Notice Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref csiph.com comp.arch.arithmetic:65

Show key headers only | View raw


Quadibloc wrote:
> 128K bytes of memory will contain a 256 by 256 multiplication table,
> and FF times FF is FE01.
>
> Thus, with a table lookup for every 8 bits of the multiplicand, two
> input terms can be generated for *eight* bits of the multiplier,
> which *doubles* the efficiency achieved with Booth encoding!
>
> And it's not as if you need an associative memory either, the two
> numbers being multiplied just index into the table.
>
> I am not so presumptuous as to think that this is a *new* idea on my
> part; no doubt others have thought of it, and it has a name, but I
> haven't noticed anyone mentioning it.

Name: Table lookup?

I bet there was a bunch of old machines without HW multipliers which did 
just this, probably based on bcd digits, i.e. 160 bytes (with 60 empty 
slots) give you the regular multiplication table.

I don't see where Booth give you any additional gains though, please 
explain!

Terje

-- 
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Back to comp.arch.arithmetic | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Napier's Bones versus Booth Encoding Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2014-06-15 07:00 -0700
  Re: Napier's Bones versus Booth Encoding Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2014-06-15 16:30 +0200
    Re: Napier's Bones versus Booth Encoding Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2014-06-15 09:28 -0700

csiph-web